Literature DB >> 23384592

Using methods from the data-mining and machine-learning literature for disease classification and prediction: a case study examining classification of heart failure subtypes.

Peter C Austin1, Jack V Tu, Jennifer E Ho, Daniel Levy, Douglas S Lee.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Physicians classify patients into those with or without a specific disease. Furthermore, there is often interest in classifying patients according to disease etiology or subtype. Classification trees are frequently used to classify patients according to the presence or absence of a disease. However, classification trees can suffer from limited accuracy. In the data-mining and machine-learning literature, alternate classification schemes have been developed. These include bootstrap aggregation (bagging), boosting, random forests, and support vector machines. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We compared the performance of these classification methods with that of conventional classification trees to classify patients with heart failure (HF) according to the following subtypes: HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction. We also compared the ability of these methods to predict the probability of the presence of HFPEF with that of conventional logistic regression.
RESULTS: We found that modern, flexible tree-based methods from the data-mining literature offer substantial improvement in prediction and classification of HF subtype compared with conventional classification and regression trees. However, conventional logistic regression had superior performance for predicting the probability of the presence of HFPEF compared with the methods proposed in the data-mining literature.
CONCLUSION: The use of tree-based methods offers superior performance over conventional classification and regression trees for predicting and classifying HF subtypes in a population-based sample of patients from Ontario, Canada. However, these methods do not offer substantial improvements over logistic regression for predicting the presence of HFPEF.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23384592      PMCID: PMC4322906          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.11.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  16 in total

Review 1.  Classification and regression tree analysis in public health: methodological review and comparison with logistic regression.

Authors:  Stephenie C Lemon; Jason Roy; Melissa A Clark; Peter D Friedmann; William Rakowski
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2003-12

2.  Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies.

Authors:  Daniel F McCaffrey; Greg Ridgeway; Andrew R Morral
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2004-12

3.  Predicting breast cancer survivability: a comparison of three data mining methods.

Authors:  Dursun Delen; Glenn Walker; Amit Kadam
Journal:  Artif Intell Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.326

Review 4.  2009 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2005 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation.

Authors:  Sharon Ann Hunt; William T Abraham; Marshall H Chin; Arthur M Feldman; Gary S Francis; Theodore G Ganiats; Mariell Jessup; Marvin A Konstam; Donna M Mancini; Keith Michl; John A Oates; Peter S Rahko; Marc A Silver; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Clyde W Yancy
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2009-03-26       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Prediction modeling using EHR data: challenges, strategies, and a comparison of machine learning approaches.

Authors:  Jionglin Wu; Jason Roy; Walter F Stewart
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Recursive partitioning for the identification of disease risk subgroups: a case-control study of subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Authors:  L M Nelson; D A Bloch; W T Longstreth; H Shi
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Gender, age, and heart failure with preserved left ventricular systolic function.

Authors:  Frederick A Masoudi; Edward P Havranek; Grace Smith; Ronald H Fish; John F Steiner; Diana L Ordin; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 24.094

8.  Effectiveness of public report cards for improving the quality of cardiac care: the EFFECT study: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Jack V Tu; Linda R Donovan; Douglas S Lee; Julie T Wang; Peter C Austin; David A Alter; Dennis T Ko
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-11-18       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors by logistic regression and a classification tree using Doppler flow signals.

Authors:  W Sauerbrei; H Madjar; H J Prömpeler
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.176

10.  Data mining methods in the prediction of Dementia: A real-data comparison of the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of linear discriminant analysis, logistic regression, neural networks, support vector machines, classification trees and random forests.

Authors:  João Maroco; Dina Silva; Ana Rodrigues; Manuela Guerreiro; Isabel Santana; Alexandre de Mendonça
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2011-08-17
View more
  50 in total

1.  Early Detection of Heart Failure Using Electronic Health Records: Practical Implications for Time Before Diagnosis, Data Diversity, Data Quantity, and Data Density.

Authors:  Kenney Ng; Steven R Steinhubl; Christopher deFilippi; Sanjoy Dey; Walter F Stewart
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2016-11-08

2.  Automating Clinical Score Calculation within the Electronic Health Record. A Feasibility Assessment.

Authors:  Christopher Aakre; Mikhail Dziadzko; Mark T Keegan; Vitaly Herasevich
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 2.342

3.  Teaching cardiovascular medicine to machines.

Authors:  Pablo Lamata
Journal:  Cardiovasc Res       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 10.787

4.  Machine learning versus traditional risk stratification methods in acute coronary syndrome: a pooled randomized clinical trial analysis.

Authors:  William J Gibson; Tarek Nafee; Ryan Travis; Megan Yee; Mathieu Kerneis; Magnus Ohman; C Michael Gibson
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 2.300

5.  Recommendations for Reporting Machine Learning Analyses in Clinical Research.

Authors:  Laura M Stevens; Bobak J Mortazavi; Rahul C Deo; Lesley Curtis; David P Kao
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2020-10-14

6.  Statistics and Deep Belief Network-Based Cardiovascular Risk Prediction.

Authors:  Jaekwon Kim; Ungu Kang; Youngho Lee
Journal:  Healthc Inform Res       Date:  2017-07-31

Review 7.  Deep EHR: A Survey of Recent Advances in Deep Learning Techniques for Electronic Health Record (EHR) Analysis.

Authors:  Benjamin Shickel; Patrick James Tighe; Azra Bihorac; Parisa Rashidi
Journal:  IEEE J Biomed Health Inform       Date:  2017-10-27       Impact factor: 5.772

8.  Outcome prediction of intracranial aneurysm treatment by flow diverters using machine learning.

Authors:  Nikhil Paliwal; Prakhar Jaiswal; Vincent M Tutino; Hussain Shallwani; Jason M Davies; Adnan H Siddiqui; Rahul Rai; Hui Meng
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 4.047

9.  Real-time prediction of inpatient length of stay for discharge prioritization.

Authors:  Sean Barnes; Eric Hamrock; Matthew Toerper; Sauleh Siddiqui; Scott Levin
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 4.497

10.  Variable Selection for Confounder Control, Flexible Modeling and Collaborative Targeted Minimum Loss-Based Estimation in Causal Inference.

Authors:  Mireille E Schnitzer; Judith J Lok; Susan Gruber
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 0.968

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.